AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nirmaljit Kaur, J.—This is a petition u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of FIR No. 228 dated 23.08.2003 under Sections 2, 37, 51, 52A, 63, 64, 65, 68A and 69 of the Copy Rights Act, 1957 and Sections 120B and 420 IPC, PS Division No. 4, Jalandhar, which was got registered by Respondent No. 2-complainant against the present Petitioners on the basis of the compromise dated 18.12.2010 arrived at between the parties. Copy of the same has been placed on record as Annexure P - 2.
The complainant is present in Court along with his counsel. He filed his affidavit in Court today, stating therein, that aforesaid FIR was got registered by him. Now with the intervention of the respectables, friends and relatives, the matter has been compromised and he has no objection if the said FIR is quashed.
This Court vide order dated 23.12.2010 had directed the trial Court to record the statement of the complainant and the Petitioners and send a report regarding the matter having been compromised.
In pursuance to the said order, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, vide its letter dated 24.01.2011 has submitted report, stating therein, that both the parties have effected compromised which is genuine one.
The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kulwinder Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr. 2007(3) RCR (Cri) 1052 has observed as under:
The compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. It is the soul of justice and if the power u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduced friction, then it truly is finest hour of justice. Disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant matters, commercial transactions and other such matters can safely be dealt with by the Court exercising its power u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the event of a compromise, but this is not to say power is limited to such cases. There can never be any such rigid rules to prescribe the exercise of such power.
The Apex Court in the case of Madan Mohan Abbot Vs. State of Punjab, emphasised in para No. 6 as follows:
We need to emphasize that it is perhaps advisable that in disputes where the question involved is of a purely personal nature, the Court should ordinarily accept the terms of the compromise even in criminal proceedings as keeping the matter alive with no possibility of a result in favour of the prosecution is a luxury which the Courts, grossly overburdened as they are, cannot afford and that the time so saved can be utilised in deciding more effective and meaningful litigation. This is a common sense approach to the matter based on ground of realities and bereft of the technicalities of the law.
The said compromise has been arrived at between the parties without any pressure. The complainant has no objection if the said FIR is quashed.
Taking into account the allegations, compromise, affidavit of the complainant as well as the report of the trial Court authenticating the genuineness of the said compromise, there is no impediment in the way of this Court to quash the present FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same in view of the above said settled proposition of law.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and FIR No. 228 dated 23.08.2003 under Sections 2, 37, 51, 52A, 63, 64, 65, 68A and 69 of the Copy Rights Act, 1957 and Sections 120B and 420 IPC, PS Division No. 4, Jalandhar and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.
Allowed in the aforesaid terms.